Forum:Like swfanon
Is this like swfanon? - Patricknoddy Talk 16:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC) :Yep, this Wikia is for Star Trek related fan fiction. --The NCC Factor Talk 16:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC) ::That is correct - just look at our name "Star Trek" Expanded Universe. If you are looking for "canon" or stuff from published books look at Memory Alpha or Memory Beta for more information there. -- 17:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC) :::I was wondering like on SWfanon if you could create your own fanon, I already knew it was about fanon. - Patricknoddy Talk 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC) ::::Do you mean create from scratch and use STEU to "host" your fiction? If that is the case then, sadly no. This is suppose to be a "reference" site for people's fan fiction (and to share with others). -- 20:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC) :::::Oh, well in that case you just lost a contributer. - Patricknoddy Talk 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC) ::::::Sorry to hear that. Maybe after you've written your fiction you can come back and update STEU with some encyclopedic entries on your writings. -- 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC) :::::::Ugh. I'd rather just create it from scratch here. I'll just use swfanon instead. - Patricknoddy Talk 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Since the subject's been brought up... Actually, I'm not convinced (and forgive me if I'm in error) that this isn't exactly what Kevin W. and Tim P. have done, since their fiction isn't (last I knew) available anywhere (online at least)--and every time I've offered to give them a place to show it off, on my website account (since I have oodles of MB available), they've conveniently ignored the offer, which tells me something right there. Their continuities constitute a large chunk of the material on STEU... and I believe they aren't the only ones. Last time I checked, NCC Factor hadn't put hardly a thing on his website. Even though the issue's been brought up, most of the time few or no one here has wanted to be more stringent on policies of accepting what is available/sourced elsewhere (which has always been my stance). Speaking for my own neck of the woods, Arcadia stuff is available/has been written online. This may be opening a can of worms--blunt honesty usually does that. Not that I'm trying to start an argument (people usually get defensive in cases like this). Just saying. 08:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC) :I think I'm with Sasoriza on this idea. Because what if a person reads an article on here and decides he/she wants to check out its source fan-fic? If it's not available, then how does he know if the article is valid? I know it's just fiction, but having a source would be beneficial. Without one, this encyclopedia feels like an encyclopedia of lies! (just kidding :P) It would just be good to say 'you must have a source' as a guideline... It would kind of give a good structure to the rules here, as this wiki is already very flexible. --Hawku 06:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC) ::How many times do I have to explain myself? I've got a series bible that I base the stories off of. That's where most of the information comes from. I just don't have as much time to write stuff right now, since I'm in the transitional stage between high school and college. A "must be sourced" policy is unfair for people like me who have plenty to offer but can't. I will do whatever is necessary to make sure such a policy is not implemented. -- 07:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC) :::I too have a series bible where my information comes from however right now I've slowed down how much writing I do because of schoolwork. Also the site I use has a very limited amount of disc space so unfortunatly what I can put on there is quite limited but I am going to try and update it as much as possible. --The NCC Factor Talk 10:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Ah, their youngness shows.... A "series bible", huh? Okay, so, if Patricknoddy claims to have a series bible, he can or should be allowed to make up whatever he wants on here? Look at it like this: They want to produce a fan series named Star Trek: New Voyages (or Tales of the Seventh Fleet for that matter). But they say, "We can't make an actual series, so we'll just write a series bible and call it a 'series'"... although there's never any actual series. In short, it would be totally fabricated. Is a film without any actual footage a film? That's pretty shoddy logic. Film or fiction--if you haven't written it, haven't produced it... in other words, if you don't have time to do the work, then you shouldn't be trying to pass yourselves off as actually having done the work. There's a word for that: Hypocrisy. A supposed source sitting next to your computer isn't much of a source. (And why can't you make that "bible" available online? That at least would be a source.) We tell others, like Zman, Homesun, and Patricknoddy (above), that they can't make stuff up from scratch on here... but that's essentially what's been done in your cases, and until you can legitimately show it, it's also literally what you've done. You can say "I have a series bible" all you want, but where's the proof? Hawku put it best: An encyclopedia of lies. (Of course, that's only partially accurate, in fairness to those who have gone the distance. But on the flipside, it's saying that we are in fact partially a bunch of liars.) We need to decide now, once and for all, on one way of doing things, sourced or unsourced, and commit to it (and gain a consensus towards whichever end--this means voting, not just talking about it). If we're going to continue to allow (since we already do) unsourced material (which could be made up or nonexistent since we can't prove it), then let's do that--but go all the way. One way or the other. We can't walk a tightrope between some people favoring their own stance when they want to but telling others they can't do the same. Serious question: Should this be an outlet for indulging one's personal Trek fanfic fantasies? 08:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC) :That's a load of crap and you know it. The only reason why I haven't been able to publish my stuff is because I've got a lot of more important stuff to worry about in my life. I'm about to head off to college and writing out an entire story takes a long time, especially for something as big as a Trek fic, and especially since I'm writing it alone. Just because my fic is unsourced doesn't mean it isn't worth adding, because my stuff is actually legitimate. It's not crap. 99% of the unsourced stuff here is crap, and that's the real problem. It's not that it's unsourced, it's that it's crap. We don't need to have source standards, we need to have better quality standards. I will not stand by and let all of my work that I've contributed here go down the drain all because I don't have as much time as you to write stories. I'm seventeen goddamn years old! Ok? I'm in high school! I have AP exams coming up! As I said, I'm getting ready to go off to college! I don't have several hours every day to just write. While it may seem like I spend a lot of time making edits on here, it's because I plan a lot of this stuff ahead of time and I do it when I have a break from other stuff. So you know what? Lay off. Trek is not my #1 priority and the only way I'd be able to give you a viable source for my Remington stuff is if I were to make it my #1 priority. You know what? I can't do that. -- 09:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC) ::Personally I agree with Sas. In this day and age - there is no reason not to have even the most meager of sites. Heck, even Star Trek: G has a site (and it's a wikia site that DOES allow the creation of fiction). I agree that allowing one and not the other is a diservice to those who have taken the time to create something (be it fan fiction or fan film or audio fan fiction). Kevin - your outburst here is not the first time.... You asked to be made an Admin when there were no Admins here.... That's all I'm going to say for now (unless we start a real vote) -- 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC) :Kevin, that's been the latest outburst among several. Do you have to be told to "lay off"? I won't stoop to your level, but I will say, this subject is not "crap"... and don't ever presume to tell me what I know. You're 17 alright--you keep proving it. You're a kid. I'm more than twice your age. Live to be at least twice as old as you are now before you start making those kinds of claims. That deplorable lack of diplomacy was uncalled for, hardly constructive, and proves once again why you should not be an admin. Like the saying goes: If not part of the solution, then part of the problem. You have to give respect to get respect. I was being reasonable above, and I'm being reasonable now. Obviously we all have lives beyond the computer, but that's no excuse for your behavior--and no excuse for not being able to at least put your "bible" online. Regardless, the issue doesn't revolve around you--it isn't meant for you alone, so quit taking it like an attack and making it personal. That's all I'm going to say about it, here. (And spare us the apologies this time. Like Sneg said... It wasn't the first.) :Before this degenerates into a feud (Notice, I did state above that I wasn't trying to start an argument), let's get back to the subject at hand. (Politely and reasonably, of course.) :On the subject: Kevin's points are beside the point. Excuses aside, "crap" is an opinion. I might agree (and have in the past, on occasion) that some contributions people have tried to put on here are "crap" (even though it's just an opinion). But that's not the point. This is a wiki encyclopedia (at least it's supposed to be), not a social club. The question is, should we be like swfanon? Should it be our policy to allow stuff made up from scratch, without sources? Note, again, we're doing that already. (And to everyone reading this, this is for all contributors to discuss, regulars and non-regulars.) 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC) ::Perhaps there could be a compromise, some kind of logo or icon that identifies the article to have an existant (Or at least outside-verifiable) source. Or a icon that says "This article has no outside sources and may be internally created fanfiction". All that needs to happen is that the article has to have a link to a source on it that is visible during the checking process and all's good. I have to say, I put a lot of work into my fan fiction, and (Not saying anyone's fan fiction is better than anyone else's), but it sorta demeans it a little when someone can just pop in here and generate a captain, a ship, a crew, and add it to the Fanon universe in no time, while I'm still penning the second panel on page one... or while the folks at New Voyages or Farragut are trying to set up the lighting on their very first scene. This would be worse if the characters conflicted (Say someone decided that in their 10-second fantasy fanfic world Exeter's Captain Garrovick was suddenly a Voodoo-weilding short black woman from Antares IV) and someone edited the master page to reflect that... It's an extreme example, but really... there will be changes to the universe with Fanfic (I for one, would be flattered to see my characters show up in someone elses' world)... the least one can do is put their back into it when they alter my characters' profile to fit into their universe... especially since I've already dedicated 2 years (Part time, of course) to my pathetic, meager 20 pages of comic (And a few stand alone pictures! Aw, see now I feel all inferior... I'm suffering from fanfic envy...)... Now, counterpoint; there is no reference to the Doppleganger Warp System in my comic. It's a device in my Bible, and is vital to the ship... but it hasn't been penned yet (It may never be penned, unless it breaks down, I guess). I think it's important to the explaination of my ship, but since there is no verifyable source for that technology, should it not be considered legal? Should I make a page? Just a thought. ::In the end I think "If you don't do the work, you don't get to Wiki"... Simply because folks will look down on this encyclopedia if it is full of fantasies that somebody dreamed up one night and typed in here on a whim (Heck, the original Wiki suffers from that problem all the time)... At least if you spent many hours on it, you are less likely to think the next day "What the hell was I thinking when I composed that?" --Aabh 11:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC) --With one quick edit -11:19 (UTC) -Aabh :::it sorta demeans it a little when someone can just pop in here and generate a captain, a ship, a crew, and add it to the Fanon universe in no time, while I'm still penning the second panel on page one... or while the folks at New Voyages or Farragut are trying to set up the lighting on their very first scene. :::Well said. Good points. (On another note, you gotta finish that comic! Others want to read it! :) ) 13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC) :I don't really want to turn this wiki into a place where people just make up any article they want without a source. However, when I first created this wiki, I was in much the same position as Kevin and NCC Factor: a lot planned, not enough time during the day to do much to make it, but now Star Trek: Unity is onto it's 14th 20-ish minute episode and the articles I have here about it are able to be sourced. I can understand the position that Kevin and others are in. They want to contribute to the Star Trek universe, but only have limited time each day to add to their fiction. Only with time will they get on and "publish" what they have. Recently, I had a look on NCC Factor's site and the first of his Star Trek: Pioneer "episodes" were on there. All in all, I think we should allow people to create articles on their projects so long as it is eventually sourced and the users give a name and discription of their projects. --Luke80 09:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC) :WOW. I've been away a few months, and a lot has happened. Todd, I am so sorry to read about your health troubles, I can't imagine was that was like; I'm very grateful and relieved to see you're doing better now. :To the point. Above, Sasoriza wrote: :::Actually, I'm not convinced (and forgive me if I'm in error) that this isn't exactly what Kevin W. and Tim P. have done, since their fiction isn't (last I knew) available anywhere (online at least)--and every time I've offered to give them a place to show it off, on my website account (since I have oodles of MB available), '''they've conveniently ignored the offer, which tells me something right there'.'' ::Aside from the fact that that last bit (which I bolded) seeming a bit unnecessarily snide, basically you're right. However, in my case at least, two stories are published on TWGuild.com - and have been since loooooong before I started working on this wiki. However, much of the material in articles here is from "unpublished" episodes and/or my series notes. So, again, in essence, you're right. ::I've offered in the past to take down the Pendragon articles, because I agree that people shouldn't be able to just come here and "make up" stuff. I had begun my article writing before that became a problem with Captain ZMan and the like. It would be the height of folly to be a proponent of a stance that I'm not willing to take myself, so, over the next couple weeks, I'll transfer the Pendragon data either to the WikiScratchpad or just to my own hard drive. It's only fair. I'm more than willing to take one for the team - I want this place to be the best it can be. ::And for the record, Todd, I thank you for your offer of webspace. I turned you down for the same reason I turned down other friends I've known much longer. I do not want to be beholden to anyone for my project. When I move to a place where I can get a broadband connection, and have the money to do so, as well as get a good web editing program, I will begin constructing a good Pendragon website. It's an impossibility for me now. I appreciate your offer; Joe Manno of ST:Liberty and a couple other people have offered as well. But it's my project, and it's my responsibility. --TimPendragon 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) There's really no point in doing that (removing the Pendragon material), if you plan to one day turn around and re-add it. If you don't really want to remove it, you don't have to go to the trouble. (But if you really have a different reason for wanting to remove it, just say so. I've also reduced my Arcadia material, simply because I'm not fond of the impression by association with the shabbier stuff here.) In the meantime, unsourced material is going to keep coming here one way or the other; that's clear by now (especially with one admin refusing to not allow it). There's no point trying to stop it--it'll be a never-ending battle. Besides, Luke80 has a fairly good point above. My thinking now is that we need a policy which specifically states that we DO allow unsourced material made up from scratch, since we are in fact doing that already (and it's not just Pendragon--which, as you say, does at least have a minimal source-basis--or Remington). I'll probably draw it up myself and make it formal. On those grounds, it's inherently legit to have the Pendragon stuff--and at least it's a hell of a lot better quality than some of the crap we get on here. So, if you want to, just leave it. At least it's prepared for the day when/if you give it a better source basis. 08:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Further discussion Again, Can't we just flag the material that has no reference source? So the Pendragon material doesn't have to be pulled? Aabh 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC) :I like this idea. :-) --Hawku 03:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (Sorry about the split-thought... I had a class to run off to) What if we had a tag, like the tag that says this article is needing cleanup or is from the "real world perspective" which says something like; "This article refers to a series or story which has no outside source material. It may or may not have a connected source outside ST:EXU but it isn't accessable at this time." The only thing that concerns me is that I have been using STEXU to make sure my timelines are tight and not conflicting with Exeter, Farragut, New Voyages and the like (It's also why I have been working so hard to clean up all red links)... I know that at least one other person is doing the same thing for her Tamerlane story... I'm concerned that if someone can just pop in here one night and really jack up the timelines there is little we can do to stop them (This is not to say that Pendragon and Remington are "jacking up the timeline", I'm talking about those who have done this in the past :) )Aabh 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC) :Re: "Jacking up the timeline" - if you're writing in a kind of a "shared universe" with Exeter, STNV, etc... there's got to be some kind of cut-off, right? You can't expect to keep your timeline in synch with everyone else's. If someone comes in and posts material that contradicts your stuff... that's just a different fan universe, isn't it? I mean, even series that don't exist in "alternate timelines" like Pendragon don't all coincide with each other. How could someone's future addition here "mess up" what you're working on? --TimPendragon ::Hmmm, good point. However, I don't think I, myself, am writing in a shared universe alone... we are all writing in a shared universe, aren't we? I mean it seems unfair to give credance to Fan Fiction but not treat it at least somewhat like canon... That's sort of what we are all talking about here, isn't it? Should I be able to generate a fan world without any work at all? If we are all in our own bubbles, then it seems like a timeline would be rather pointless... Lots of conflicting worlds and such... But that is a good point; there is some fiction designed to be in the "real" world (ST:NV, Exeter, Farragut), and then there are some that are obviously "alternate" world stories (I'd like to think the Kirk Spock love adventures fall into that catergory). How should we handle that? Aabh 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC) :::Without mutual planning and consent, no two authors' stories are going to fit together perfectly. Series like Star Trek: Liberty and The Adventures of Argus do that, but by and large, we do all write "in our own bubbles". But then, say, one author has Ro Laren killed during the Dominion War, but another has her rejoining Starfleet in 2380 (for example). There are an infinite number of variations like that. You can't expect them to fit together - they're not designed to. Someone writes a post-''Nemesis'' story with Worf as the first officer, someone else has Martin Madden as XO. Neither one is "more right" than the other - every author has a different interpretation. :::As for the timeline pages, well, it might get confusing, but that's why the series references are there. We all know and accept that "The Borg Elimination Incident" in Star Trek: Unity did not occur in Star Trek: Pioneer, for example. --TimPendragon 05:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC) ::Good points! I am sure that there will always be conflicting references... There really isn't much we can do about that, I guess... but I guess I was under the impression that was sort of what this Wiki was about... to help future writers, to help with the mutual planning and consent part... No one is more nit picky than a Trekkie... well, maybe Star Wars fans... but you get the point :D... perhaps I was mistaken (And that's cool! I'm relatively new here, it's easy for me to mistake things :D). Anyway, that was what I perceived due to the existance of a timeline. Of course putting the series references there does help the matter, I have no quarrel with that. But if this isn't a place for direct reference, then it must be a kind of showcase? Maybe? ::So, I guess that misconception solved, we are back to the original problem: How do we "Validate" Fanon? If this place is indeed a showcase, then how do we showcase really hard work like Exeter or Farragut and downplay the 10 second pipe-dream of the 3 foot tall black voodoo-woman version of Captain Carter? Aabh 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC) :::One thing I was going to propose was some kind of peer review. If we are going to allow people to just "make things up" for the wiki, then part of such a policy (Sas, were you gonna write one up?) should include some kind of "quality standard." Go to FanFiction.com and look at all the awful fangirl stuff there - 99% of what's there should not be here, imho. --TimPendragon 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC) ::::It's on my list of things to do (and there are so many--just never enough time in the day). But if you feel like taking a crack at it, Tim, be my guest; it can always be "tweaked to taste". You seem to have a good idea what it's all about. 05:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC) :::::Given the circumstances - ie, many of my articles would fall under this new policy - it would be better if you (or another admin) drafted the framework. I'm sure Sneg, Luke and others would probably have some input as well. The main thing I want to see is some kind of "quality standard" established or at least some mechanism for "peer review" of "made-up"/"unsourced" material. --TimPendragon 23:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC) ::::::^Sounds good. Is the 'flag' idea still under consideration? I was thinking one of those small boxes at the top-righthand corner of the page. They could say something along the lines of "This article's material is an original creation at Star Trek Expanded Universe" or something else. Maybe there could also be another small box for the series that have yet to be sourced. They could say something like "This article has yet to be sourced" or "This article preludes upcoming source material". --Hawku 18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Instead of talking about it... just create it. That's why a wiki is open-access. 13:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC) :True enough, but since I'm one of the ones most effected by this new policy, I shouldn't be the one to write it up. So... will someone please get the ball rolling? --TimPendragon 03:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Okay, Since I stated it, I'll try to cook something up if it's okay with folks, but I'm teaching a class way out in the stix tonight, so I can't do it until tomorrow (Friday Tokyo Time) Aabh 04:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC) :: For those interested, a Peer Review Discussion is underweigh at this location: http://stexpanded.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Peer_Review :D Aabh 06:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)